Slashdot Mirror

It's interesting talking to Germans about their laws and how they have an inherent assumption that everything is regulated.

Says the guy from the country with the dumbest laws on earth. https://www.lawteacher.net/fre...

To a free man it's not valid

To such a "free man" 7 need not be a prime number either.

... violates the first principle of human rights.

And the canonical example of what might constitute a "valid law" of the English Parliament, namely that "all blue-eyed babies be put to death" doesn't?! *

Prohibition was "duly enacted" in the US, too, but it was a stupid, ill-advised, and evil power trip.

It may well have been stupid, ill-advised and an evil power trip. It was nonetheless, as a matter of mere fact, a valid law. After all, Prohibition was repealed rather than being struck down.

[*Besides which, those so-called "human rights" which are actual rights rather than aspirations, are simply called "rights"]

There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?

Heh, my opinion is based on the same law actually. Lets look at how lawyers, courts, and the legal system actually treat it...

http://nationalparalegal.edu/p...

excerpt:

For example:

Tiger, an avid golfer, goes down to the local course and begins to play. He intends for his first shot to land on the fairway and the shot lands perfectly in the middle of the fairway. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to Tiger, the land that the fairway is on does not belong to the golf course. It belongs to Arnold. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnoldâ(TM)s property. It is true that Tiger did not know that the fairway was on Arnoldâ(TM)s property but, for purposes of intent, Tiger did intend to hit the ball onto Arnoldâ(TM)s property. Therefore, he is liable.

As you can see from this example, the intrusion onto the plaintiffâ(TM)s land can be committed by personal entry onto the property, or it can be committed by causing some object (or another person) to enter the property. See Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948).

http://www.lawteacher.net/lect...

TRESPASS TO LAND
DEFINITION

Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.

Here's another... this time an actual appeals case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-...

Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). â In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. â After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs âsought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court. â After a trial without a jury, a judge of that court concluded that the defendants' operation of the golf course did not support the plaintiffs' nuisance claim, denied the requested relief, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.3 âBecause the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief âSee Hennessy v. Boston, 265 Mass. 559, 561, 164 N.E. 470 (1929); âFenton v. Quaboag Country Club, Inc., 353 Mass. 534, 538, 233 N.E.2d 216 (1968).

emphasis mine... plenty of others.

The criminal code as written has LONG been interpreted by the courts to treat a 'the person enters or remains on or in property of another' as including invasions by objects that the person controls.

At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'

The Wikipedia page on Donaldson v Beckett suggests that this is a British common law right, which, by my understanding, means it would apply in the USA also, unless expressly overridden. "The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law" Law of the United States.

With regard to the particular situation you've described, I see what you're saying, and I found the article The privacy in one's garbage, which may be relevant. From my reading, I think this would be covered under a right to privacy, as the writings were to be picked up for disposal from within the property. If the writings had been placed outside the property for collection, the situation might be different.

In any case, if there is an issue with privacy here, I think it would be better dealt with by reforming privacy law. Using this as an argument against the original suggestion for reforming copyright law seems a bit convoluted. I think your other argument was better.

The linked story is Sensationist Bullshit, there is no such measure announced in the Queens speech, (Queens-Speech-2014-The-full-transcript)

The planned "Serious Crime Bill" will ensure sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause.

Given the current Computer Misuse act is absolutely useless this is a good move.

From tis article;

The trial judge ruled that the facts did not give rise to the defence as the threats had not been directed at the commission of a particular offence,

Duress is a defense only if one is threatened by someone that if you do not break a specific law that you or someone else will be harmed or killed. It would only work if someone threatened that if they did not lie on the stand that they would be harmed or killed. It does not mean that if one feels uncomfortable one is under duress and therefore can commit perjury. Even if the threat did exist it would be investigated by the police and the witness would be compelled to testify truthfully. An officer of the court telling someone to go onto the stand and tell the truth or they will be put in jail is not considered duress under the law.

More information at http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/duress-1.php

Though I found that simply by searching the author's exact phrase above, so hat-tip to him.

I could call you a `convicted fucking child molester', and unless you actually had been convicted of child molestation, I could be guilty of libel or slander. If it was clear that I said it as a joke, or I was just throwing random insults at you, it probably wouldn't be libel/slander. But if I'm serious, and I mean it, then merely having the word `fucking' in there won't save my legal ass.

As for `fucking retard', `retard' is a lot more ambiguous than `convicted child molester' and therefore harder to show/prove/disprove, but depending on the context, you could still be successfully sued for libel or slander. Fortunately, in this case, it's clear that you're joking and so you're probably safe. :)

Of course, I'm thinking of US law here. I'm guessing that other countries are similar, but I don't know for sure.

Just because someone publishes something that is wrong, doesn't mean you're allowed to publish statements that they're a crackpot. It's libel.

Good point. However, I think M. F. I. Warehouses Ltd. v. Nattrass is relevant here: 'reckless' is interpreted more liberally than it suggests, as 'without having regard to whether their advertisements are true or false'. It is obvious that 'unlimited' in the advertising is not the same as 'limited to 5 Gb' in the terms and conditions, so it seems reckless in the sense given here.

http://www.lawteacher.net/Contract/Agreement/Agree mentLecture.html

My preference with these is to modify the contract AND put a condition on the acceptance. I've never been challenged on either, and I've handed in 5 such modified contracts and never been challenged about it (either about the modifications/acceptance, or after changing jobs), in spite of otherwise violating the language of the base contract.

"1. COUNTER OFFERS

If in his reply to an offer, the offeree introduces a new term or varies the terms of the offer, then that reply cannot amount to an acceptance. Instead, the reply is treated as a "counter offer", which the original offeror is free to accept or reject. A counter-offer also amounts to a rejection of the original offer which cannot then be subsequently accepted. See:

                Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334.

"

also:

"
2. CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

If the offeree puts a condition in the acceptance, then it will not be binding.
"

Not really. The courts require Mens Rea [wikipedia.org] before they can convict. No Mens Rea, no culpability, no crime. This is a basic requirement and can't be avoided (unless Russian corts are very, very weird). A bit on the scale of "No body, no crime".

That is false. Mens Rea does not apply in this case.
http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Principles/Stri ct%20Liability%20Lecture%201.htm

Infringing copyright is a strict-liability offence. The offender's state of mind is irrelevant in such offences. Well-known strict-liability offences include most traffic violations or statutory rape. It does not matter if you thought the parking space was legal or if you thought your partner was an adult...you are just as guilty either way.

On the other hand, you can't be punished for Mens Rea in a strict-liability offence. You cannot receive a ticket for "attempted speeding", no matter how hard you push that Yugo.

My basis for my statement was what I've been told by lawyers, but, looking at the first in-depth site I happened to come across on this subject, one clearly can have certain kinds of unilateral contracts as an exception to the normal rule.

However, AFAICC, that doesn't mean the GNU GPL is a unilateral contract, as it doesn't seem to make use of this exception, defining itself in the different terms of an open permission which one doesn't do anything to accept, even by implication (as opposed to saying "This is a contract which you accept by doing foo").

(I'm a bit sleep deprived, so hopefully that made some sense.)

Hopefully, most people on Slashdot are educated enough to know that "stealing intellectual property" is not even possible, by definition.

Indeed. In the UK Theft Act of 1968, theft is defined as:

dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
from http://www.policeuk.com/study/law_theft.html

As if that's not enough, Oxford v Moss [1979] Crim LR 119 established that information is not property.

A student borrowed an advance copy of an examination paper, copied the questions and then returned the paper. The Divisional Court held that he was not guilty of theft on the basis that information could not be stolen. Clearly the paper on which the exam questions were typed was property belonging to Liverpool University, but there was no evidence that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the University of it.

from http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Property%20Offe nces/Theft%20Cases.htm

We have two reasons for sending people to prison . . .

Actually, there are several more than that. In no particular order:
(a) to incapcitate them (while they are locked up) from committing another crime
(b) to deter them (after they get out) from committing a second crime (specific deterence)
(c) to deter others from committing a similar crime (general deterence)
(d) to hurt them (retribution)
(e) to reform them (rehabilitation)
(f) to express our condemnation of the crime (denunciation)
This page does as good a job as any of defining the jargon. Some punishments (other than jail) are also designed to restore to a victim something that was taken from him/her (compensation).